>>49863683GameFreak and Pokémon as a whole does, in fact, care about consistency. I already pointed out that Oak, and the series, has flagged Pokémon as being like pets since gen I and much has been built upon the concept of a Pokémon as a pet, and in particular a concept that borrows heavily on domestic pets like dogs. This is present in all forms of media like the games and the anime, some of the more elaborate player-pokemon interactions involved Pokémon barking, chewing on random objects, including the players shoes, in gen 8 Pokémon were programmed to behave like dogs in camp, I have already shown how dogs act as a pack and how Pokémon in camp behave in a similar manner.
There *has* been consistency if you weren't covering your eyes and pretending one's inane fantasies are reflected in the franchise. The series is actually not very subtle about it.
And there's the gist of it, the series treats Pokémon as being closer to fictional *dogs* than to people, and has i already expressed the series hammers this via dialogue and pokedex entries and driving a *clear* divide between what a person is and what a Pokémon is. This isn't some inane ramblings but a very clear conscious decision at work. In essence the opposite of what the circus here *wants* to believe. The Pokémon themselves are geared towards being cute, innocent and being more like one's pet. Among other designs in similar demographics from other franchises Pokémon stands out with some of the least sexualized designs on top of having much more "feral" monsters in comparison.
Even when the series wants to show Pokémon as wild creatures they can never fully commit to that aspect and Arceus is a perfect example of that divide.
But the point here is that it's inane, that sort of discussion should have no place here and these inane vile thoughts will never find vindication.
